dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2672
share rss forum feed

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

3 edits

1 recommendation

So, onward we go

After todays adjournment to January 17th, the first question I want to ask is will/can CIPPIC now be involved formally.

Here is a brief summation of the document they submitted to the Judge.

1. Its been 7 years since the last time this was tested. Disclosure was not granted.

2. Since that time, the test that was used on that occasion has been refined.

3. Both the Ontario and Saskatchewan Courts of Appeal have recently concluded that identifying anonymous online users implicates serious privacy concerns (R. v. Ward, 2012 ONCA 660; R. v. Trapp, 2011 SKCA 143, respectively)

4. 7 years ago, it was about a handful of IP's. This time its thousands. Is there a bona fide intent to bring 2000 actions if disclosure was granted? The troll business model suggests speculative threats, i.e not bona fide and for another purpose (i.e hoping to extract payments without further court involvement after disclosure).

5. Voltage are looking for COMMERCIAL infringement, but their application does not make a bona fide case for that.

I feel quite positive - a lot more so than yesterday, and a lot more so than at times this morning during process.

I don't know - but using the links in the email seems to have been pivotal. I'm guessing if TSI had said what they were doing, Voltage would have said it was deliberately designed to show poor rates of notification and pushed for disclosure today as planned.

That would have been a step further than we have been before.

Anyhow... we live to fight another day.

On prepared ground.

stevey_frac

join:2009-12-09
Cambridge, ON
Is this document available anywhere online? I would like to read it.

--Steve

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
»www.cippic.ca/sites/default/file ··· 2012.pdf


MacGyver
Don't Waste Your Energy
Premium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Canada
kudos:2

1 recommendation

That's awesome, they used the term "troll" in a letter addressed to the courts. Nice calling a spade for what it is.

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
reply to UK_Dave
It's the commercial infringement part where I think Voltage may have seriously overplayed their hand. They have no way of proving commercial infringement even by the civil court standard of evidence. If CIPPIC can get standing to intervene in the case, I suspect they will have a golden opportunity to hammer Voltage on this point.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
Possibly.

I'm not suggesting this (if you're watching, Voltage) but maybe:

1. They expected disclosure today.
2. They intended to scare people into paying up.
3. By getting disclosure on a case with COMMERCIAL in the submission, they could send out letters with lots of big dollar sign threats, rather than ones for $5k.

In which case I hope they're crying into their bottle of Sour Grape, finest Vintage 2012.

Made in Canada.

fasteddy

join:2010-06-03
reply to UK_Dave
Yes, but even in the best case scenario where they lose because they're claiming commercial infringement, it doesn't provide any clarity regarding future cases. I'm more concerned about how lawsuit-threatenting extortion is going to play out in the courts.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
Good point, Eddy.

I don't know enough to know what happens about that.

Maybe Voltage will withdraw now they didn't get their (possible) quick-win-disclosure for follow-up commercal threats?

Can they amend before the 17th and change it to non-commercial to reduce the chance of being shot down?

If they did, would they need to gather a whole different set of IP's?

Maybe they'll come back with a non-commercial version of the same?

I honestly don't know.


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
said by UK_Dave:

Maybe Voltage will withdraw now they didn't get their (possible) quick-win-disclosure for follow-up commercal threats?

That is exactly what I have been saying will happen from the start. This was all merely a fishing experiment for Voltage...

Anyway, maybe we should direct the funds from that indigogo page to them as they seem to be taking up the case? They are a student based group from the University of Ottawa btw where I am proud to be a graduate of
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to UK_Dave
The CIPPIC will definitely motion to get involved. Whether that motion is accepted by the judge is still a bit unclear from the decision today. The motion to adjourn was brought forth by TSI's arguments not the CIPPIC's. The CIPPIC's letter was read by the judge. The CIPPIC's letter was a letter of intent to intervene.

The letter being read does not mean the motion for the CIPPIC to intervene was granted. We'll probably get more on that on the 17th, and it will also give the CIPPIC to properly compile their arguments with a formal motion. We'll know more about what's going to happen on the motion to intervene on or before the 17th.

--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
The concern for me is that CIPPIC only intend to go after Logan. Rule 238 only relates to the examination of a person.

238. (1) A party to an action may bring a motion for leave to examine for discovery any person not a party to the action, other than an expert witness for a party, who might have information on an issue in the action.
Marginal note:Personal service on non-party

(2) On a motion under subsection (1), the notice of motion shall be served on the other parties and personally served on the person to be examined.
Marginal note:Where Court may grant leave

(3) The Court may, on a motion under subsection (1), grant leave to examine a person and determine the time and manner of conducting the examination, if it is satisfied that

(a) the person may have information on an issue in the action;

(b) the party has been unable to obtain the information informally from the person or from another source by any other reasonable means;

(c) it would be unfair not to allow the party an opportunity to question the person before trial; and

(d) the questioning will not cause undue delay, inconvenience or expense to the person or to the other parties.


Jaxom

join:2012-03-10
East York, ON
reply to UK_Dave
Much thanks to all that participated in this and specifically to Teksavvy!

I am sure even this cost them a pretty penny. Lawyers are ridiculously expensive.

I am not one of the unfortunates that is being sued but I still appreciate all that Teksavvy has already done for us. Best ISP in Canada.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

1 recommendation

reply to UK_Dave
This is good news. It shows the court is made up of smart people.

I can't help but see the whole thing from a natural selection point of view. Voltage failed to get disclosure with this particular scheme. If Voltage wants to continue, they'll try a different scheme next. If that one fails too, and if they still want to continue, they'll try yet another. Each time learning how the court and the Law works, each time getting closer to their intended goal. However, natural selection works for the court and the Law too. As Voltage does all this, the court will remember what Voltage did, and what the court did too. Adaptation on both sides is inevitable.

If ever Voltage or another copyright holder wins just motion to disclose, every other copyright holder will look at what it took to win, then do the same. However, I bet it's going to take much more than just what Voltage has in their hands at the moment. That's because the court is not going to stand still and just look at the same crap a hundred times, and answer the same thing a hundred times "No, it's not enough evidence". So the court will most likely establish minimum thresholds for evidence at some point just for the court to even look at the claim, and failing that will impose a fine on any applicant who does not have it the day of hearing. This a case of a highly technical nature, which means all details can be determined down to the exact bit. As such, the evidentiary requirements can be set with the same exactitude.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
reply to d4m1r
said by d4m1r:

Anyway, maybe we should direct the funds from that indigogo page to them as they seem to be taking up the case? They are a student based group from the University of Ottawa btw where I am proud to be a graduate of

I'd like to donate but would first like to know the money will go to who ever can max the maximum damage in court. Will hold off for a few days to see the outcome on where the money will go.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

The CIPPIC will definitely motion to get involved.

Teksavvy can now also oppose it.

I don't expect anyone to know what stratagy they will take till lawyers on both sides fight it out.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

The concern for me is that CIPPIC only intend to go after Logan. Rule 238 only relates to the examination of a person.

One step at a time. Raising legal arguments is like a game of chess, you play the moves you are dealt with. The first step would be to fight for users privacy and test the merits of the case, if unsuccessful there will more opportunities to raise objections based on the information the CIPPIC requested of Voltage in their motion.

Where I'm a bit unclear here is if the judge will be ordering up a motion to provide what the CIPPIC has requested of Voltage for the 17th. What happens between now and the 17th regarding that information will determine if the CIPPIC's first step in this was successful, and most likely will give a hint as to whether the judge will allow CIPPIC's intervention to proceed.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to hm
said by hm :

said by jkoblovsky:

The CIPPIC will definitely motion to get involved.

Teksavvy can now also oppose it.

From what took place in the court today, there's no hint that is possible. The motion to adjourn was based on notification, not intent to oppose.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


El Quintron
I dunno, lemme check my trollodex
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by jkoblovsky:

From what took place in the court today, there's no hint that is possible. The motion to adjourn was based on notification, not intent to oppose.

I'd argue Teksavvy is going to hold its hand fairly close to its chest on this one, and it's going to be fairly difficult to predict what they've got planned as their next move.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

said by hm :

said by jkoblovsky:

The CIPPIC will definitely motion to get involved.

Teksavvy can now also oppose it.

From what took place in the court today, there's no hint that is possible. The motion to adjourn was based on notification, not intent to oppose.

Not according to copyright (and real) lawyer, Howard Knopf.
It will be interesting to see if Teksavvy now decides to actually oppose and if CIPPIC is permitted to intervene

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to UK_Dave

Taking a look at the math behind the lawsuit

Someone I knew used to say this all the time; "follow the numbers". And so here I am following the numbers:

2300 affected users
@ $5000 per user (Highest possible punishment for non-commercial infringement)
=
$11,500,000 potential settlement

Depending if these lawsuit proceed, we can see that Voltage definitely has financial incentive to ask all the affected users to settle for $5000 if they are being sued for more than that because they are going for commercial infringement. Let's take a look at one of their movies they are saying these 2300 affected users infringed upon:

Killer Joe
Source Link: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_Joe ··· e_(film)
Budget: $10,000,000
Made at the box office: $3,665,069
Total losses = -$6,334,931

Potential lawsuit gains
Minus
Total losses from Killer Joe
=
$5,165,069

While this information isn't conclusive evidence that Voltage is purely out to get copyright violators; we can see that there is financial motivation for them to do so. The judge should be asking himself if the justice system is a cog in the mechanism through which movie companies recoup losses on non-profitable movies and if such a thing is worth having the privacy of Canadians violated.

Here's another movie with financial data available:

The Magic of Belle Isle

Production Budget:
$5,000,000

Box Office:
$102,388

Total Losses:
- $4,897,612

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to UK_Dave

Re: So, onward we go

Just wanted to add:

Here is what the lawsuits would look like if every single user of accused of copyright infringement fought back and got the lowest possible settlement for non-commercial infringement:

2300 affected users
@ $100 per user (Highest possible punishment for non-commercial infringement)
=
$230,000 potential settlement

Not so appealing for Voltage afterall.

analog andy

join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC
said by m3chen:

Just wanted to add:

Here is what the lawsuits would look like if every single user of accused of copyright infringement fought back and got the lowest possible settlement for non-commercial infringement:

2300 affected users
@ $100 per user (Highest possible punishment for non-commercial infringement)
=
$230,000 potential settlement

Not so appealing for Voltage afterall.

Cost of getting subscriber info from TS $200 x 2300 = $460,000

$230,000
-$460000
________
-$230,000

Possible profit of asking users to pay $20-100 for the infractions $46,000-230,000 they never had.

I best most people wouldn't even blink before they gave Voltage $20 if caught uploading/downloading.


anon234

@teksavvy.com
Wouldn't they also get costs from the defendants?
i.e., $100 per user for the infraction + $200 TSI costs?

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to analog andy
said by analog andy:

[

I best most people wouldn't even blink before they gave Voltage $20 if caught uploading/downloading.

That would be VERY generous towards Voltage.
According to most 'standard' movie distribution deals, after a 4 week theatrical run the distributor is lucky to get 50% of the gross box office. For a $12 ticket price the distributor would receive about $5 at that point in time.

I say let everyone press the court for letting them pay actual damages.

John2086

join:2012-03-09
reply to UK_Dave
Is it possible to counter-sue based on this being a frivolous law suit? I mean there are people who were tagged as copyright infringers who weren't even signed up to TekSavvy at the time, no?